Points to Kmiec for striking a thoughtful tone and being straightforward in his arguments. Unfortunately for him, this simply exposed the anemia of those arguments.

Basically, he ended up with "gay marriage will destroy the birth rate"...as if gays are gonna go have nice, steady, hetero marriages and raise lots of precious little snowflakes based on a supreme court ruling. Please.

Otherwise, his arguments took the form of "Well, I can't give a GOOD reason, except that my God says it's just plain wrong." (The direct quote is something about an "often sincere religious belief that deserves respect and accommodation.")

To which I say "Fuck your often sincere religious belief". Fuck it right in the ear.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, and marry whoever you think your God tells you to, gay or straight.

But IN NO WAY is it okay let your delicate religious sensibilities determine how somebody ELSE'S freedom should be curtailed.

So, unless you're willing to defend the practice of stoning a woman to death because she was seen outside without her burqa due to an "often sincere religious belief" that this is an offense to God, please but this line of reasoning to bed. For good.

"But IN NO WAY is it okay let your delicate religious sensibilities determine how somebody ELSE'S freedom should be curtailed.

So, unless you're willing to defend the practice of stoning a woman to death because she was seen outside without her burqa due to an "often sincere religious belief" that this is an offense to God, please but this line of reasoning to bed. For good."

Very well said, thank you. It's why the idea of the separation of church and state is so key in a diverse society...we can't pick and choose what elements of which religious morality we enshrine into law.

You're both wrong.

You quote the Old Testament only. Which has been superseded by the New Testament. BTW, the argument against gay marriage is far more robust.

Uh...what? Neither one of us quoted any testament at all.

Also...show don't tell, Spiker. If the "argument against gay marriage is far more robust", tell me how.

I've been on other threads doing just that. Cut and paste has lost its charm :0)

Spiker, it is your personal belief that the Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament, has been superseded by the New Testament. Their are millions of people, Jews like me, who believe that the Tanakh has not been superseded and the New Testament is nonsense. There are billions of religious people, Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans etc., who find both Testaments silly and wrong. There are millions of athiests who find every religion silly and wrong. Many of these people would love to use the force of the state to make those who disagree with them, agree with them. The result in any situation would be a blood bath. To avoid this blood bath, many people try not to base real life law, the type that is actually applied to humans, on religious principles. The results tend to be neater and work better.

"You quote the Old Testament only. Which has been superseded by the New Testament."

Not all religions recognize the New Testament. You need to brush up, spiker.

This is a specious argument. It implies laws are created in a vacuum, that they have never been by faith.

Because 200+ years ago people were predominantly, perfectly secular humanists. Hahaha...

Aren't we talking about the Christian motivation to be against gay marriage. Please focus.

"Because 200+ years ago people were predominantly, perfectly secular humanists"

Actually many of them were. Please read Jefferson, Adams and some Franklin for a start.

They well understood the dangers of letting religion run the government. It's one of the reasons this country was founded to begin with.

Ha ha ha.

Let me understand, then...

Did you make your post in error?

Or did you think that a claim to have made an argument somewhere else on the site gave you with the power to state your conclusions without support on this thread?

You can read those same men and see that they were also like men today, wrestling with their faith or lack of it. It doesn't mean they weren't well informed by the New Testament.

And how about the other 30 some participants in our Revolution and nation building. Why do conveniently leave them out. Don't they fulfill your fantasy-scape.

Hahaha.

Created in a vaccuum? No. But that doesn't mean that the laws derive from testamental sources. Yes your faith tells you that those books derive from "god" - but the only evidence we have is that they were written by men. Men who where not bio-physiologically that different than the men of today. Thus the likelihood that they created these laws out of their own imaginations and prejudices, rather than actually having them handed to them is pretty high.

The fact that those Abrahmaic laws are exactly the kinds of laws that irreligious men in positions of societal power would make argues even more strongly for this.

As for the new testament - you are limited to Corinthians 6:9 largely. So if homosexuality was such a big deal, why doesn't it appear in any of the Gospels? Why are there no parables that directly address it, after all, prostitution is addressed, which in the Toraic law is held in equal contempt?

Sorry, there isn't strong or meaningful scriptural condemnation - especially in light of the fact that Leviticus puts homosexuality in the same realm of punishment as your kids giving you sass.

Most Christians are citing Toraic law. The same law that puts homosexuality as a crime on equal footing with your kids sassing you.

And what was the consequence of sassing your parents?

How often do you believe those consequences were enforced, either on adultery, sodomy, or sassing?